Richard_Morrison

I am trying to figure out if modeling this condition is even possible in Chief so that live sections approximate reality, rather than drawing a CAD "whiteout" detail". I haven't come up with a good way to do this, yet, so I thought I'd toss this out there to see if anyone has any ideas. Basically, I'm trying to draw roughly the attached condition. A new foundation under an existing foundation, with split levels. Major problem is that two foundation walls are not happy occupying same space at same time.

To clarify, I've never had a client try to edit the file directly, but there have been a couple of instances where they wanted to send the file on to other people to use. I think the Chief Viewer is pretty easy for most folks, and I've never had to do any tech support or hand-holding. An iPad app would be awesome for this, especially if it were just a non-editable 3D file. I can easily see a marketing benefit when people show off their projects to their friends. I recently attended an open house of a project of mine about to start construction, where they wanted to let the neighbors know what was going on before construction started. Not only did they have prints of the PDFs of the floor plans/elevations taped up on the walls, they had a video of the project playing on their large-screen TV that they had created with the Client Viewer. Nice PR!

I like the Client Viewer. But while we're on this topic, how hard would it be to make the plan file I send to my client not modifiable by any version of Chief? I really don't like the idea of sending a fully editable file to my client that they can send to someone else. I've already had requests to reuse my Chief files.

If people are not willing to come to my office, I do online presentations (GoToMeeting, or Skype, or join.me, etc. all work.) It hasn't been a problem, and saves a bunch of commuting time. Years ago, I used to drag a projector, small screen, and laptop to clients' houses, but no more.

Thanks, Perry. But that really wasn't what I was talking about. I'm referring to a floor slab in a basement, say, not outside of one. It used to be that you could set the basement floor level to, say, -36", and then if you set the stem wall height to 2", the footing would rise until it hit the underside of the slab and then go no further, leaving a stem wall of 40" (or whatever). In X7, if you set the stem wall to be higher than the existing floor, it will override the floor height, and take it along for the ride.

Sorry, I have no idea what a "scoop footing" is. Must be SoCal lingo.

Part of the problem, I think, is that the slab elevation used to be much more stable. You'd set the slab height, and then you'd pick a very short stem wall, and the footing would elevate to the bottom of the slab and go no further. Somewhere along the line, it changed. Now the stem wall height takes the slab/floor elevation along with it, and its all just a mess of variability and resetting heights. Drives me nuts, too.

Just FYI, any PDFs that are placed on a Layout in landscape mode will get partially cut off when the layout sheet is printed. The only workaround is to export the document as an image (JPG, PNG, or TIF) before placing. I wasted a lot of time (and reproduction expense) trying to get a layout to print today. Tech support knew about this bug, but didn't have a workaround, other than the image approach. Hope this helps avoid a little hair-pulling.

I hope we aren't giving Jim credit for Scott's video, although I would certainly give them both the status of "The Man."

If Joe's solution is a problem, you can always import them as PDF's.

Thanks, Glenn! Guess it's been awhile since I used automatic roofs.

Maybe someone could elucidate the practical difference between a knee wall and a regular interior wall, both of which stop at a roof plane. In what circumstances would "Knee Wall" need to be checked?

Thank you, Scott, for that video! There are some very instructive points there. To clarify as to why I used a Roof Hole, it was because Chief told me that was the way you did a manual dormer: http://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-00449/234/Chief-Architect/Roofs/Dormers/Creating-a-Manual-Dormer.html . Earlier iterations didn't have a common ridge, and so the holes probably got screwed up as they got closer and closer to the main ridge. Then in trying different ways to get the side walls to behave, I started playing around with various types of walls, and just bailed out at some point. If you do as Jim suggested, and try an automatic dormer and study how the generated roof hole works (with little "ears" at the bottom like a window stool), it is not intuitive at all. And I notice that you also had some roof edges going to the middle of a wall. I still have not fully grasped how that concept works and when it is appropriate. You'd think after mucking around with this program for over 15 years I would, but I don't.

Hi Manuel, In retrospect, I had initially thought the problems were probably just a couple of silly things that I had missed, but it turned out to be fairly involved to fix. Certainly beyond my own abilities at the moment, and I wouldn't consider myself a beginner. I find the basics are generally very quick -- certainly faster than any other program -- but if you get into anything beyond mainstream, it can take more time to sort out the issues than if you'd started with a different program (and I think you know which one I mean, LOL). The tortoise and the hare story comes to mind. There is something to be said for using the right tool for the job. I think the problem is that it's sometimes difficult to know when Chief is going to be slower than an alternative, or not accurate enough (e.g. with terrain modeling). X7 is the best Chief version so far, and so the calculus keeps changing. If Chief were the only program I used, it would make struggling through the annoyances more palatable. So I don't have an easy answer. Tough it out to get to Jim's level of proficiency? Know when to bail out and move to a more flexible program? I know I would PREFER to stay in Chief, but currently, I don't think it's always possible with my abilities, and frustration levels with a few key things that are missing for me.

Jim, Very impressive! Thank you! I will need to study this for a bit, but it was not quite as easy as Scott was making it out to be, I think. I actually did try exploding a dormer first, but it was not totally clear what was important in the Roof Hole configuration. Like Mick, I did not get any of the bad polyline messages. You are right that the roof at the bottom of the stairs needs work; this is in an early stage of design and I was pulling my hair out trying to get the cheek walls to display properly. This shouldn't have to be so complicated...

Thanks. But what are you suggesting in place of the Hole In Roof option?

I have no idea how you stumbled onto that one. Good job!

Okay, I've exhausted my arsenal of tricks. After trying everything I can think of to get this to clean up, I can't. The issues are illustrated in the picture. (This is on the second floor of the garage.) Any thoughts? Morrison.zip

Here you go...

So you put a layout label macro on page 0 where the sheet number should go. You then "Edit Page Information" for each page and type A-9, etc., for the label. Clear?

Why not just edit the layout label manually for five pages?

I have the recollection that I used to take .PRN files and just change the extension to .PLT, and that used to work. Might give it a try to see what happens. It was years ago, so no guarantees.

Just to be clear, this needs to be pasted into a Rich Text DBX, not a plain Text DBX.

The best way to do this is to upgrade to X7, where you can have multiple "main layers." You would just include the sheathing as part of your main layer definition.

Not exactly. x/y for 2D elements, but x/y/z for 3D elements. Only problem is that x/y has different x's and y's than the 3D system. This really needs to get fixed.